Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

[The purpose of the Digest is informative: Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval.-Editor.]

An appreciation of Louis Marshall’s personality and achievements appeared in an article in the New York Times Magazine of Sunday, on the occasion of his attainment of seventy years. The writer, James C. Young, observes among other things:

“It is forty-nine years since he pleaded his first case, and in that period American life has been a swiftly moving spectacle. Not many men have watched the marvelous panorama with more comprehending eyes than has Mr. Marshall.

“Today Mr. Marshall is believed to have argued probably as many important cases involving constitutional questions as has any other lawyer in the State. At the Peace Conference in Paris he drafted and worked to have adopted minority treaties that have gone far toward protecting the lesser racial groups of Europe. He is frequently quoted on public questions and has contributed to philanthropic enterprises in the matter both of aid and of leadership.

“As a publicist with various international sympathies and contacts, Mr. Marshall is frequently heard on the part this country plays in world affairs.”

MR. FORD BACKS OUT

Ford’s renewed attack on the Jews, accompanying his refusal to accept the challenge issued to him recently by Nathan Straus, is denounced in editorial comment in various papers.

The “Jewish Morning Journal” thinks it is regrettable that Ford was given this opportunity to repeat his slanderous charges, an opportunity which, says the paper, he has pounced upon eagerly, being avid for publicity of any kind. Referring to Mr. Straus’ contrast between the world wide benefactions of John D. Rockefeller and the campaign of race hatred conducted by Henry Ford, the paper observes: “Perhaps Mr. Straus overlooked at the moment the difference in the treatment accorded by public opinion to the two men which certainly helped in bringing Ford to the conviction that it would be well for him to seek fame as a champion against the imaginary Elders of Zion.” When John D. Rockefeller first became renowned as the richest man in the world all the prejudice against concentrated wealth was levelled against him. In order to avoid a similar experience, the paper continues, “Ford calculated, or it was done for him by his advisers, that the surest method of defending himself from such attacks was to become an accuser, to storm against others in order that others might not think of attacking him. Thus the man who earns tens of millions each year, began a campaign against Wall Street, even though every man on that street would wish to earn a tenth of what Mr. Ford earns. He campaigned against corporations, even though very few of them could compare their income and earnings with those of the Ford Motor Company. And when this move failed he turned his guns against the Jews, to the ‘international’ bankers who are paupers compared to Ford.

“The Rockefellers,” the paper concludes, “have given away hundreds of millions for educational, philanthropic and scientific purposes, and the money has brought much good to the world. The Detroit men, having a grudge against the world, is free of these responsibilities which the spirit of the time imposes on the rich. His cries against capitalist conspiracies have the effect of making people forget about America’s biggest capitalist, about the meanness and egoism with which he uses his fortune, the largest accumulated by any individual in our time. He seeks publicity of another kind and that is something the Jews should not help him in getting.”

The “Day” terms Ford’s refusal to accept Straus’ challenge as the greatest self-indictment. “Were Ford a fighter,” the paper writes “he would gladly have accepted the challenge. If he really had faith in what he and his agents all over the world have been saying against a people whose public record goes back four thousand years, he would be most eager to accept Straus’ proposal. Instead he says he cannot accept the challenge because the ten jury men might prove ignorant on the Jewish question.

“This ‘logic’ of a coward is amazing. Does Mr. Ford mean to say that among the 120 million Americans there cannot be found ten men who are not ‘ignorant in the Jewish question’? Is it possible that Ford, measuring the whole American nation with the rod of his own ignorance, actually believes in this absurdity?”

A very pointed comment on Ford is made by Arthur Brisbane in the N. Y. “American” of yesterday. Ford’s charge that the Jew “controls the revolutionary elements of the world, on one hand and the ultra-conservative elements on the other,” and that “the international Jew is in direct control of all financial centres of government, including the United States Federal Reserve System,” will be distinct news for Trotzky as well as for Secretary Mellon and Mr. Strong of the Federal Reserve Bank, declares Mr. Brisbane, adding:

“The four richest men in the world are Rockefeller, Ford himself, Mr. Mellon and George F. Baker-according to those that should know. The Rothschilds compared with them are only a child’s bank. The Jews have evidently shown great moderation controlling finance, but letting ‘Goyim’ have the real money.

“One great financial house which Henry Ford sincerely considers a Jewish institution, using Christians for a false face, actually will not give employment to any Jew.”

ECHOES OF THE PRITCHETT REPORT

Echoes of the recent Pritchett report on Palestine are to be found in various papers, which have commented on the subject editorially.

Thus, the Providence (R. I.) “Tribune” thinks Dr. Pritchett’s report “is more likely to give impetus and strength to the Zionist movement, which he sweepingly condemns, than to retard or destroy it,” and adds:

“The record of what the Jewish settlers in Palestine are doing speaks for itself. The worst marshes have been drained, and the Haifa Bay Development scheme, now under way, will increase the value of the entire west coast. They have practically destroyed the great curse of malaria. A new standard of life and education has been introduced. Great technical schools have been created in Haifa and a great university and library has been established in Jerusalem. There are training schools for girls in horticulture and field work. The Hadassah Society, supported by the Jewish women of America, has spread health knowledge and is treating children of every race and creed.”

The Utica (N. Y.) “Press” observes:

“Many will regret this report besides the Jews. The movement to reclaim Palestine for the ‘chosen people’ has the sympathy of Christians in all lands. There is an idealism and sentiment about it, perhaps, that do not comport with the actual facts. Nevertheless, it has been the hope that this enterprise on the part of the Jewish people to establish a home country in Palestine might prosper.”

Agreement with Dr. Pritchett is voiced by the Olean (N. Y.) “Herald,” which argues that Dr. Pritchett “is doing this nation and especially those who have looked upon the Zionist movement with friendliness, a real service in expressing himself in no uncertain language concerning the effort that is being made to establish a National home for the Jews in Palestine. Anyone who has traveled through Palestine with his eyes wide open, could not fall to agree with Dr. Pritchett,” the paper contends.

An Ark of the Covenant, which is declared to be more splendid than the original described in Exodus, has been constructed by two London artists for Temple Emanuel in San Francisco. It will be sent from London next week to California.

The art has been completed after many months of work by Frank Ingerson and George Dennison. It follows in general the specifications given in the Bible. It is nine feet high and weighs 3,000 pounds and is made with bronze doors decorated with jewels and gold in mystic designs.

The coloring is scarlet, gold, blue, white and purple. Among the symbols on the ark are the Star of David, the tree of life, the pomegranate, the passiflora, a lion and a lamb and the tablets of the law.

At the annual meeting of the membership of the Denver Sheltering Home for Jewish children in Denver, Colo., a resolution was passed changing the name of the home to that of the Denver National Home for Jewish Children.

The Denver National Jewish Home has for 22 years cared for the children of tubercular